Labor may be a resource, but I don't see how this statement fits the economic principles. What do you mean when you say, "If there was enough people to over throw the labor unions, then there would be no labor unions, but since that is not the case, the unions are the luxury of the people."?

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

Ah but labor unions themselves are born of capitalism! Would a union exist if there were nothing in it for the organization? The extortion tactics that have become acceptable, like attacking "scabs" and so forth, make todays labor unions a lot like inner city gtangs!

You are really missing the point! Would unions exist if management had not exploited workers in a unpardonable fashion? Do you know anything about the labor movement? Would unions exist if management had been honest and fair with its workers?
When exactly have scabs been attacked? I don't recall hearing anything about that news flash.

Over throw was the wrong word. I mean to say, that since there is something of a shortage of people who can do a certain thing, then the wages of the people working there go up. Take the UAW (an extremely strong labor union that has been robbing the auto companies for years) for example, they are experiencing problems now because they are making less money due to foreign competitors, and there are now younger people looking for work that are not joining the unions in order to get a job. Another example is China, they have so many people that organized unions are nearly impossible because the corporations there have such a massive pool of people willing to work for them - the population to jobs available ration determines wage.

What's more, the unions can actually have an economic advantage. In the case of a monopsony, where the product produced is not in a perfect competition, often the wage rate rises quickly with additional workers - the idea is that in order to higher more workers you need to pay more for the additional worker and that means that you will need to pay the other works that you already had that same amount, so the revenue gained goes down with each additional worker. If the unions set a price, then the corporations don't need to worry about hiring additional workers for more, the price is set.

Another economic plus of the unions is that it spreads money around. Heaven knows that a auto worker who's job it is to screw on a bolt should not make 26$ an hour, with the occasional break, but since they have that money, an entire economy of service industries develop. Detroit (close to where I live) is having problems now because the big three (auto companies) are not doing so well. It used to be a metropolis, and there is still a vast amount of suburban service industries that are now hurting because our main vein (the auto industry) has been cut off. Had the money not been spread the way that it was, there would be vast differences between the rich and the poor, and the area would not have developed the way that it did. You can say that it's bad that it was ever built, but I owe my style of life to it, so (*)(*)(*)(*) off.

Labor Unions came into being because of unfair working conditions, but now, they are making it so that we can't compete. I work in an industry that is unionized. Starting pay for an unskilled position starts at $50,000 plus benefits. Bases is 33,680 - with incentives and commission that makes it 50. My industry has an exclusivity on products and raises prices whenever they feel fit and it deals with stuff people use daily.

__________________

Liberals believe it is okay to kill babies, but not terrorists.

democrats believe it is okay to taser a 10 year old if this stance will get their guy elected.

So you cannot respond to the point of the post: you posit that unions represent a monopoly on labor. Wrong. Business owners have the exact same freedom that workers enjoy in this situation- if they don't like the business climate due to worker demands, they can and do bloody well go somewhere else to set up shop. End of story.

Labor Unions: For those too stupid to think or provide for themselves.

__________________
"I should be calling collect from jail for the things I commit each night in my head" - D. Mustaine.

Are you writing laws against stupidity ,now, Sue?

So your saying they have to move their factories and everything instead of the workers going to a different factory to find another job. That seems incredibly impractical from any standpoint. Are you say that business owners have the freedom to go somewhere else, or that they have the freedom to create monopolies? They do not have the freedom to form monopolies, and while they may have the freedom to go somewhere else, nobody is requiring them to do so. Workers can demand whatever they want, I honestly don't care, unless they are trying to prevent anyone from working under the wage that they want so that they can get that wage or whatever (monopoly on labor).

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

That would be self defeating irony... the government writing laws against stupidity.. lol